Democrats Suing Everyone - What? (Page 2): Huh. OK, I guess that does make some sense. But isn't Mueller already investigating the collusion? Won't his conclusions serve as a discovery...

straightUp Loc: California

Kevyn wrote:

They successfully sued the Republican Party in the past over Nixon’s crimes. The suit will allow them a process of discovery where the American people will become aware of collusion between the republicans, Wikileaks and the Russians. The republicans will likely try to block the suit, fail and then offer a huge payoff to avoid discovery.

Huh. OK, I guess that does make some sense. But isn't Mueller already investigating the collusion? Won't his conclusions serve as a discovery process for the American people? What more could a lawsuit do that his investigation isn't doing already? Even if the deplorables refuse to accept his Mueller's findings (which they will) how would we expect a lawsuit to be any more convincing to those people? I seriously don't think there's as much value in the discovery process as the DNC might think... I could be wrong here but I get a strong sense that most people who are open to argument are already convinced and those who are refusing to consider the possibility now, will not be changed by ANY discovery process.

As much as I harp on the right for leveraging ignorance, I fear that ignorance itself is a smaller factor in the division of Americans. I think hatred is a much bigger factor. The die-hard Trump supporters won't care if Trump *DID* collude with the Russians as long as Trump continues to persecute the people his supporters hate. I think the persecution of Muslims, blacks, immigrants, LGBT and anyone else that isn't loyal to white supremacy is actually more important to them than the integrity of our democracy. As for everyone else, I don't see why Mueller's investigation won't be a sufficient discovery process.

Also, there is no law that says Russia can't make attempts to influence our population through our own media, so again, on what grounds are they suing Russia? I agree with the Democrats that Russian influence is a legitimate concern and I can see holding the president responsible because the presidency is subject to Constitutional law, but Russia isn't. Nor is Wikileaks. If anything, I think the DNC should try to constrain their attacks on Trump to specific violations of the law and specific conflicts of interest between his actions and the welfare of the American people.

straightUp Loc: California

moldyoldy wrote:

The suit will not go forward until the Mueller investigation is over. There will be damages payed to the injured parties in civil court when the criminal trials are finished. The organizations behind this should be held accountable.

Oh... I guess I need to read more about this lawsuit. I didn't realize that it was pending Mueller's investigation. That makes a huge difference in my mind.

moldyoldy

straightUp wrote:

Oh... I guess I need to read more about this lawsuit. I didn't realize that it was pending Mueller's investigation. That makes a huge difference in my mind.

I am not sure if the judge has ruled on that yet, but there is no way they can go forward with a civil suit until there is a resolution of the criminal case.

straightUp Loc: California

pafret wrote:

i "As for the suit against Trump... There's ... (show quote)

There's a reason why I said "treason perspective" and not "treason". The difference is that treason is something a prosecution would have to proof in definitive terms, so the law you mention would serve as a better gauge than your Merriam-Webster definitions. But I am not suggesting that Trump is guilty of treason. I am simply referring to the context of the situation that encourages a focus on the possibility of treason... That's what I am calling the "treason perspective". For this I can use your definitions to validate my statement. There are actually three of them listed as two (the first one being a conjunction), so I'll break them down so they are more clear.

1. attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance,
2. to kill or personally injure the sovereign or the sovereign's family,
3. the betrayal of a trust : treachery

The easiest point to confirm is that the President of the United States does indeed owe allegiance to the United States of America. So the question becomes, is he attempting to overthrow the government of the United States? This all depends on what we are actually calling an overthrow. In general, the reference is to *forced* changes in government policy and that can take many forms... An overthrow can be a wide-spread revolution, a more focused coups d'etat or even a national election that affects significant changes in policy. Seriously, you don't have to change the flag to overthrow a government.

Trump's campaign to "Drain the Swamp" is about as close to an overt attempt to the overthrow the government as any elected president has ever come. No other president has ever obsessed so much over repealing the laws and replacing the officers of a previous administration. The betrayal of trust adds even more to the context, not just because of Mueller's investigation but because of Trump's long running track-record as a con-artist. So while there is no concrete basis (yet) for accusing Trump of treason, the definitions you bring up do invoke the possibility to a point of heightened concern, hence the "treason perspective".

straightUp Loc: California

moldyoldy wrote:

I am not sure if the judge has ruled on that yet, but there is no way they can go forward with a civil suit until there is a resolution of the criminal case.

That's good to hear. I mean it's the law, but it's good to hear it's being exercised. Democrats don't have a McConnell in their back pocket. LOL.

moldyoldy

straightUp wrote:

There's a reason why I said "treason perspective" and not "treason". The difference is that treason is something a prosecution would have to proof in definitive terms, so the law you mention would serve as a better gauge than your Merriam-Webster definitions. But I am not suggesting that Trump is guilty of treason. I am simply referring to the context of the situation that encourages a focus on the possibility of treason... That's what I am calling the "treason perspective". For this I can use your definitions to validate my statement. There are actually three of them listed as two (the first one being a conjunction), so I'll break them down so they are more clear.

1. attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance,
2. to kill or personally injure the sovereign or the sovereign's family,
3. the betrayal of a trust : treachery

The easiest point to confirm is that the President of the United States does indeed owe allegiance to the United States of America. So the question becomes, is he attempting to overthrow the government of the United States? This all depends on what we are actually calling an overthrow. In general, the reference is to *forced* changes in government policy and that can take many forms... An overthrow can be a wide-spread revolution, a more focused coups d'etat or even a national election that affects significant changes in policy. Seriously, you don't have to change the flag to overthrow a government.

Trump's campaign to "Drain the Swamp" is about as close to an overt attempt to the overthrow the government as any elected president has ever come. No other president has ever obsessed so much over repealing the laws and replacing the officers of a previous administration. The betrayal of trust adds even more to the context, not just because of Mueller's investigation but because of Trump's long running track-record as a con-artist. So while there is no concrete basis (yet) for accusing Trump of treason, the definitions you bring up do invoke the possibility to a point of heightened concern, hence the "treason perspective".

There's a reason why I said "treason perspect... (show quote)

I think treason when every appointment to run and agency is given to someone who wants to destroy it. Putin is one happy guy with trump.

maryla

There's an awful lot of Americans who are convinced the government does not work for anyone. It is getting too big and bloated. Many presidents since Eisenhower have suggested that the "Deep State" exists and must be done away with. Maybe in a warped mind one might think of Trump's call for an end to this shadow-state and that his claim that he has the fortitude to do away with it as treason but the acts of BHO more closely indicate treason.

straightUp wrote:

There's a reason why I said "treason perspective" and not "treason". The difference is that treason is something a prosecution would have to proof in definitive terms, so the law you mention would serve as a better gauge than your Merriam-Webster definitions. But I am not suggesting that Trump is guilty of treason. I am simply referring to the context of the situation that encourages a focus on the possibility of treason... That's what I am calling the "treason perspective". For this I can use your definitions to validate my statement. There are actually three of them listed as two (the first one being a conjunction), so I'll break them down so they are more clear.

1. attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance,
2. to kill or personally injure the sovereign or the sovereign's family,
3. the betrayal of a trust : treachery

The easiest point to confirm is that the President of the United States does indeed owe allegiance to the United States of America. So the question becomes, is he attempting to overthrow the government of the United States? This all depends on what we are actually calling an overthrow. In general, the reference is to *forced* changes in government policy and that can take many forms... An overthrow can be a wide-spread revolution, a more focused coups d'etat or even a national election that affects significant changes in policy. Seriously, you don't have to change the flag to overthrow a government.

Trump's campaign to "Drain the Swamp" is about as close to an overt attempt to the overthrow the government as any elected president has ever come. No other president has ever obsessed so much over repealing the laws and replacing the officers of a previous administration. The betrayal of trust adds even more to the context, not just because of Mueller's investigation but because of Trump's long running track-record as a con-artist. So while there is no concrete basis (yet) for accusing Trump of treason, the definitions you bring up do invoke the possibility to a point of heightened concern, hence the "treason perspective".

There's a reason why I said "treason perspect... (show quote)

glibona Loc: Nevada

straightUp wrote:

There's a reason why I said "treason perspective" and not "treason". The difference is that treason is something a prosecution would have to proof in definitive terms, so the law you mention would serve as a better gauge than your Merriam-Webster definitions. But I am not suggesting that Trump is guilty of treason. I am simply referring to the context of the situation that encourages a focus on the possibility of treason... That's what I am calling the "treason perspective". For this I can use your definitions to validate my statement. There are actually three of them listed as two (the first one being a conjunction), so I'll break them down so they are more clear.

1. attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance,
2. to kill or personally injure the sovereign or the sovereign's family,
3. the betrayal of a trust : treachery

The easiest point to confirm is that the President of the United States does indeed owe allegiance to the United States of America. So the question becomes, is he attempting to overthrow the government of the United States? This all depends on what we are actually calling an overthrow. In general, the reference is to *forced* changes in government policy and that can take many forms... An overthrow can be a wide-spread revolution, a more focused coups d'etat or even a national election that affects significant changes in policy. Seriously, you don't have to change the flag to overthrow a government.

Trump's campaign to "Drain the Swamp" is about as close to an overt attempt to the overthrow the government as any elected president has ever come. No other president has ever obsessed so much over repealing the laws and replacing the officers of a previous administration. The betrayal of trust adds even more to the context, not just because of Mueller's investigation but because of Trump's long running track-record as a con-artist. So while there is no concrete basis (yet) for accusing Trump of treason, the definitions you bring up do invoke the possibility to a point of heightened concern, hence the "treason perspective".

There's a reason why I said "treason perspect... (show quote)

Nice spin but no cigar.. either you're a little confused or trying to re-write the history of the last administration.
All the points of conjecture you're attempting in vain to assert can be directly attributed to the disasterous 8 yr. reign of obama and his well known and well documented corrupt administration.
You know it, I know it... America and the world know it.
In the meantime keep enjoying your freedom and liberty protected by our Constitution - and thank God President Trump was elected to protect our welfare, best interest and sovereignty - and that obama was not and will not be successful in his goal and legacy to fundamentally change our great and exceptional nation into a soc/com/Marxist third world Godless dictatorship.

old marine Loc: America home of the brave

moldyoldy wrote:

The suit will not go forward until the Mueller investigation is over. There will be damages payed to the injured parties in civil court when the criminal trials are finished. The organizations behind this should be held accountable.

MY GOD MOLDYOLDY do you realize what you are asking?

Half of the Demon-crat party would be in prison, the fines would pay half of the national debt and the Demon-crat party would be broke.

Then who would pay your monthly trolling check?

Semper Fi
God bless America and President Trump

moldyoldy

old marine wrote:

MY GOD MOLDYOLDY do you realize what you are askin... (show quote)

You are so brain dead it is pathetic.

old marine Loc: America home of the brave

moldyoldy wrote:

You are so brain dead it is pathetic.

Hahaha hahaha I doubt those ha ha ha are as good as

Don't worry I'm sure the law will overlook you in their investigation they don't want the worm just the big fish so you are safe for a while..

Semper Fi
God bless America and President Trump

bdamage Loc: My Bunker

straightUp wrote:

Why on earth is the DNC spending money on these id... (show quote)

Same worn out tactic....different year.

Accusing others of the evils you do...

Monday, April 23, 2018

The day after the final Presidential Debate on October 18,2016, the news media was abuzz with stories, analysis, speculation and, quite frankly, aghast at candidate Donald Trump's assertion that he may not accept the results of the election if he lost. Democratic Candidate Hillary Clinton stoked the firestorm on October 21 in Cleveland, Ohio saying, "We know in our country, the difference between leadership and dictatorship. And the peaceful transition of power is something that sets us apart." On October 24, she added more gasoline, tweeting, "Donald Trump refused to say that he would respect the results of this election. That's a direct threat to our democracy." The firestorm continued until she lost.

Into the wee hours of the morning after the election, Clinton refused to address her campaign supporters. Then finally, around 2:30 am, she called Trump and conceded. But she didn't accept the results of the election. Then Jill Stein of the Green Party (communist front) and the Clinton campaign, through Clinton's George Soros-financed attorney, challenged the election results beginning on October 26. By mid-February the Clinton-Stein coup attempt, which by the way, included a Russian voter machine hacking narrative, was put down by Pennsylvania District Court Judge Paul S. Diamond. Diamond said that Stein-Clinton presented "absolutely no evidence of any voting irregularities."

By January, the lame duck "president," the Clinton Campaign and the Democratic National Committee were baking the Russian narrative, accusing the Russians of hacking Clinton and DNC emails. The emails were damning evidence of the unethical, immoral, illegal chicanery practiced by Clinton and the Democratic Party. The lame duck "president" and Clinton claimed that the Russians hacked the computers and released the information on them to influence the election. Whoever hacked the computers (as it is still unproven), did America a great favor. First, they showed that Clinton and the Democratic Party were poor stewards of sensitive information and, therefore, too incompetent to hold the office of the Presidency. Second, they revealed the extent of the institutional graft and corruption of Clinton and the DNC.

Clinton went on a speaking tour blaming Russians, women, men--everyone but herself--for her election loss. Now the DNC, representing Clinton, Friday filed a civil suit against the Trump Campaign, WikiLeaks, and Russia, claiming the hacked (and very damaging) emails represented a far-reaching conspiracy to elect Trump. The people voted, Clinton lost, she tried to overturn the election on a recount, now the Democratic Party is trying to delegitimize the election with another lawsuit. Clinton and the DNC are refusing to accept the results of the election, and in Clinton's own words, "That's a direct threat to our democracy." 2 Timothy 3:13 says, "But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived." Evil always accuses others of what evil does itself.

Have a Blessed and Powerful Day!

Bill Wilson - The Daily Jot

maureenthannon

straight up, Do you really expect Politicians to make sense?

Mikeyavelli

In effect, Hillary is suing me for not voting for her.

maureenthannon

Clinton and the DNC are counting on Americans being too stupid to have any idea what's going on. Clinton illegally got campaign money from Russia(It's illegal to take campaign contributions from foreigners). They tried to launder the dirty money y the Russians not giving it directly to the campaign, but gave millions to the Clinton Foundation,and over a half a million to Bill for a speech.They distracted people from their illegalities by inventing a Trump/Russia collusion. When the election results were announced, lame duck Obama said that Americans were stupid if we elected Trump.